Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 431

control, N = 211

treatment, N = 221

p-value2

age

43

50.98 ± 12.72 (25 - 72)

50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72)

51.60 ± 12.79 (32 - 72)

0.747

gender

43

0.449

f

29 (67%)

13 (62%)

16 (73%)

m

14 (33%)

8 (38%)

6 (27%)

occupation

43

0.978

full_time

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.1%)

homemaker

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

other

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (9.1%)

part_time

7 (16%)

4 (19%)

3 (14%)

retired

13 (30%)

6 (29%)

7 (32%)

self_employ

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

t_and_e

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

unemploy

10 (23%)

5 (24%)

5 (23%)

marital

43

0.892

divore

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.1%)

married

8 (19%)

3 (14%)

5 (23%)

none

24 (56%)

12 (57%)

12 (55%)

seperation

3 (7.0%)

2 (9.5%)

1 (4.5%)

widow

3 (7.0%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.1%)

edu

43

0.399

bachelor

13 (30%)

5 (24%)

8 (36%)

diploma

7 (16%)

5 (24%)

2 (9.1%)

hd_ad

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

postgraduate

4 (9.3%)

2 (9.5%)

2 (9.1%)

primary

4 (9.3%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

secondary_1_3

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (9.1%)

secondary_4_5

10 (23%)

7 (33%)

3 (14%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

1 (4.5%)

fam_income

43

0.881

10001_12000

3 (7.0%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.1%)

12001_14000

1 (2.3%)

1 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

4 (9.3%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

16001_18000

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

18001_20000

1 (2.3%)

1 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (21%)

6 (29%)

3 (14%)

2001_4000

5 (12%)

2 (9.5%)

3 (14%)

4001_6000

6 (14%)

3 (14%)

3 (14%)

6001_8000

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.1%)

8001_10000

3 (7.0%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.1%)

below_2000

4 (9.3%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

medication

43

37 (86%)

17 (81%)

20 (91%)

0.412

onset_duration

43

16.62 ± 12.51 (0 - 56)

17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56)

15.40 ± 10.48 (0 - 35)

0.519

onset_age

43

34.36 ± 12.65 (15 - 62)

32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55)

36.20 ± 13.73 (15 - 62)

0.334

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 431

control, N = 211

treatment, N = 221

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

43

3.44 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)

3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5)

3.50 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

0.761

recovery_stage_b

43

18.40 ± 2.67 (9 - 23)

18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23)

18.36 ± 2.48 (14 - 23)

0.938

ras_confidence

43

30.70 ± 4.78 (19 - 40)

30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40)

31.14 ± 5.05 (22 - 39)

0.545

ras_willingness

43

12.30 ± 2.05 (7 - 15)

12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15)

12.32 ± 2.30 (7 - 15)

0.959

ras_goal

43

17.67 ± 3.08 (12 - 24)

17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23)

17.77 ± 3.13 (12 - 24)

0.833

ras_reliance

43

13.44 ± 3.11 (8 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18)

13.64 ± 3.43 (8 - 20)

0.680

ras_domination

43

10.16 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15)

9.41 ± 2.79 (3 - 14)

0.036

symptom

43

29.67 ± 10.20 (14 - 56)

28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45)

30.45 ± 11.66 (15 - 56)

0.614

slof_work

43

22.98 ± 5.03 (10 - 30)

23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30)

22.55 ± 5.32 (10 - 30)

0.571

slof_relationship

43

26.33 ± 5.81 (11 - 35)

26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35)

25.73 ± 5.82 (11 - 35)

0.496

satisfaction

43

21.23 ± 6.88 (5 - 30)

19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29)

22.55 ± 6.93 (5 - 30)

0.204

mhc_emotional

43

11.58 ± 3.55 (4 - 18)

11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17)

12.00 ± 4.05 (4 - 18)

0.435

mhc_social

43

14.93 ± 4.80 (6 - 25)

15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25)

14.68 ± 5.13 (6 - 23)

0.733

mhc_psychological

43

22.28 ± 6.22 (6 - 36)

21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33)

22.95 ± 6.33 (6 - 36)

0.473

resilisnce

43

16.95 ± 4.71 (6 - 25)

16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24)

17.05 ± 5.04 (7 - 25)

0.897

social_provision

43

13.67 ± 3.29 (5 - 20)

13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20)

13.91 ± 3.64 (5 - 19)

0.638

els_value_living

43

17.14 ± 3.04 (5 - 23)

16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20)

17.41 ± 3.71 (5 - 23)

0.558

els_life_fulfill

43

13.07 ± 3.38 (4 - 18)

12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17)

13.91 ± 3.25 (4 - 18)

0.096

els

43

30.21 ± 5.78 (9 - 40)

29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36)

31.32 ± 6.57 (9 - 40)

0.201

social_connect

43

26.84 ± 10.18 (8 - 48)

27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45)

26.64 ± 11.18 (8 - 48)

0.897

shs_agency

43

14.19 ± 4.82 (3 - 20)

13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20)

14.64 ± 5.23 (3 - 20)

0.537

shs_pathway

43

16.70 ± 3.73 (4 - 22)

16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21)

17.18 ± 4.16 (4 - 22)

0.390

shs

43

30.88 ± 7.90 (7 - 42)

29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41)

31.82 ± 8.56 (7 - 42)

0.434

esteem

43

12.49 ± 1.24 (10 - 15)

12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14)

12.32 ± 1.39 (10 - 15)

0.364

mlq_search

43

15.21 ± 3.38 (3 - 21)

15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21)

15.23 ± 3.53 (3 - 20)

0.972

mlq_presence

43

13.67 ± 4.04 (3 - 21)

14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19)

13.23 ± 4.87 (3 - 21)

0.464

mlq

43

28.88 ± 6.77 (6 - 41)

29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40)

28.45 ± 7.45 (6 - 41)

0.676

empower

43

19.95 ± 4.33 (6 - 28)

20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24)

19.82 ± 4.96 (6 - 28)

0.837

ismi_resistance

43

14.93 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19)

14.91 ± 3.31 (5 - 20)

0.960

ismi_discrimation

43

11.19 ± 3.16 (5 - 19)

12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17)

10.41 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)

0.100

sss_affective

43

9.49 ± 4.28 (3 - 18)

9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15)

9.05 ± 4.98 (3 - 18)

0.494

sss_behavior

43

9.49 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)

10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)

8.82 ± 4.64 (3 - 18)

0.318

sss_cognitive

43

7.77 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)

7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15)

8.05 ± 4.41 (3 - 18)

0.647

sss

43

26.74 ± 11.84 (9 - 54)

27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44)

25.91 ± 13.63 (9 - 54)

0.642

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.38

0.261

2.87, 3.89

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.119

0.364

-0.595, 0.833

0.745

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.752

0.514

-0.256, 1.76

0.158

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.265

0.824

-1.88, 1.35

0.750

Pseudo R square

0.048

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.4

0.588

17.3, 19.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.065

0.822

-1.68, 1.55

0.937

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.153

0.586

-1.30, 0.995

0.800

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.440

0.967

-1.45, 2.33

0.659

Pseudo R square

0.001

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

30.2

1.032

28.2, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.898

1.443

-1.93, 3.73

0.537

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.617

0.732

-0.817, 2.05

0.419

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.151

1.211

-2.22, 2.52

0.903

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.3

0.446

11.4, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.032

0.623

-1.19, 1.25

0.959

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.406

0.558

-1.50, 0.687

0.483

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.537

0.918

-1.26, 2.34

0.571

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.6

0.684

16.2, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.201

0.956

-1.67, 2.08

0.834

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.117

0.660

-1.18, 1.41

0.862

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.17

1.090

-3.30, 0.971

0.310

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.679

11.9, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.398

0.949

-1.46, 2.26

0.677

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.136

0.428

-0.703, 0.975

0.757

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.541

0.709

-0.848, 1.93

0.464

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_domination

(Intercept)

11.0

0.496

9.98, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.54

0.693

-2.90, -0.184

0.031

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.11

0.921

-2.91, 0.700

0.244

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

2.67

1.489

-0.247, 5.59

0.086

Pseudo R square

0.095

symptom

(Intercept)

28.9

2.243

24.5, 33.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.60

3.136

-4.55, 7.74

0.613

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.21

1.901

-4.94, 2.51

0.539

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.00

3.143

-5.16, 7.16

0.757

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_work

(Intercept)

23.4

1.091

21.3, 25.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.883

1.525

-3.87, 2.11

0.566

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.84

0.601

-3.02, -0.660

0.014

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.30

0.996

-0.647, 3.26

0.222

Pseudo R square

0.016

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

27.0

1.258

24.5, 29.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.23

1.759

-4.67, 2.22

0.490

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.46

1.113

-3.64, 0.720

0.220

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

2.73

1.839

-0.878, 6.33

0.170

Pseudo R square

0.013

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

1.502

16.9, 22.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.69

2.100

-1.43, 6.80

0.208

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.41

1.017

0.418, 4.41

0.042

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.47

1.684

-4.77, 1.83

0.405

Pseudo R square

0.039

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.1

0.747

9.68, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.857

1.045

-1.19, 2.91

0.417

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.15

1.196

-1.20, 3.49

0.367

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.464

1.954

-4.29, 3.36

0.818

Pseudo R square

0.023

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.2

1.141

13.0, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.509

1.595

-3.63, 2.62

0.751

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.41

1.670

-0.864, 5.68

0.167

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.29

2.736

-8.66, 2.07

0.244

Pseudo R square

0.036

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

1.341

18.9, 24.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.38

1.875

-2.29, 5.06

0.465

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.07

2.125

-2.09, 6.24

0.347

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.92

3.471

-8.72, 4.88

0.589

Pseudo R square

0.016

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.9

1.033

14.8, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.188

1.445

-2.64, 3.02

0.897

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.387

0.564

-0.719, 1.49

0.510

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.45

0.934

-4.28, -0.618

0.027

Pseudo R square

0.013

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.728

12.0, 14.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.481

1.018

-1.51, 2.48

0.639

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.327

0.664

-1.63, 0.974

0.633

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.10

1.097

-1.05, 3.25

0.342

Pseudo R square

0.015

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.663

15.6, 18.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.552

0.927

-1.27, 2.37

0.555

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.34

0.668

0.027, 2.65

0.076

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.60

1.103

-3.76, 0.567

0.181

Pseudo R square

0.020

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.710

10.8, 13.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.72

0.993

-0.228, 3.66

0.091

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.38

0.665

0.075, 2.68

0.068

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.56

1.098

-3.71, 0.596

0.190

Pseudo R square

0.058

els

(Intercept)

29.0

1.239

26.6, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.27

1.732

-1.12, 5.67

0.197

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.71

1.161

0.433, 4.98

0.044

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.18

1.917

-6.94, 0.580

0.130

Pseudo R square

0.040

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.0

2.241

22.7, 31.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.411

3.133

-6.55, 5.73

0.896

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.74

1.575

-1.35, 4.83

0.297

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

2.69

2.606

-2.41, 7.80

0.327

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

1.065

11.6, 15.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.922

1.489

-2.00, 3.84

0.539

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.30

0.877

-0.417, 3.02

0.171

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.80

1.451

-4.65, 1.04

0.244

Pseudo R square

0.011

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.2

0.802

14.6, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.991

1.121

-1.21, 3.19

0.381

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.756

0.702

-0.620, 2.13

0.310

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.879

1.160

-3.15, 1.39

0.468

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs

(Intercept)

29.9

1.732

26.5, 33.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.91

2.421

-2.83, 6.66

0.434

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.92

1.238

-0.508, 4.34

0.156

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.74

2.048

-6.75, 1.28

0.214

Pseudo R square

0.013

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.266

12.1, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.348

0.372

-1.08, 0.381

0.354

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.894

0.493

-0.073, 1.86

0.096

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.889

0.797

-2.45, 0.673

0.284

Pseudo R square

0.098

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.2

0.755

13.7, 16.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.037

1.056

-2.03, 2.11

0.972

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.760

1.362

-1.91, 3.43

0.586

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.00

2.208

-6.33, 2.33

0.378

Pseudo R square

0.015

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

14.1

0.892

12.4, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.916

1.247

-3.36, 1.53

0.467

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.665

0.582

-0.476, 1.81

0.282

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.57

0.964

-4.46, -0.683

0.025

Pseudo R square

0.043

mlq

(Intercept)

29.3

1.532

26.3, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.879

2.142

-5.08, 3.32

0.684

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.32

1.748

-2.11, 4.74

0.469

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-5.10

2.881

-10.7, 0.546

0.106

Pseudo R square

0.037

empower

(Intercept)

20.1

0.952

18.2, 22.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.277

1.331

-2.89, 2.33

0.836

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.408

0.584

-0.737, 1.55

0.503

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.28

0.967

-3.18, 0.611

0.217

Pseudo R square

0.007

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

15.0

0.582

13.8, 16.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.043

0.813

-1.64, 1.55

0.958

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.129

0.858

-1.81, 1.55

0.884

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.473

1.406

-2.28, 3.23

0.744

Pseudo R square

0.001

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.673

10.7, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.59

0.941

-3.43, 0.253

0.098

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.857

0.754

-2.34, 0.622

0.280

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.674

1.244

-1.76, 3.11

0.598

Pseudo R square

0.057

sss_affective

(Intercept)

9.95

0.926

8.14, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.907

1.294

-3.44, 1.63

0.487

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.329

0.648

-1.60, 0.942

0.624

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.345

1.072

-2.45, 1.76

0.755

Pseudo R square

0.014

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.953

8.32, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.37

1.332

-3.98, 1.24

0.309

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.32

0.960

-3.20, 0.560

0.201

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.04

1.585

-2.06, 4.15

0.526

Pseudo R square

0.024

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

7.48

0.897

5.72, 9.23

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.569

1.254

-1.89, 3.03

0.652

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.24

0.829

-0.390, 2.86

0.169

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.23

1.370

-4.92, 0.455

0.136

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss

(Intercept)

27.6

2.601

22.5, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.71

3.637

-8.84, 5.42

0.641

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.535

1.778

-4.02, 2.95

0.770

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.727

2.943

-6.49, 5.04

0.810

Pseudo R square

0.006

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.10) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.87, 3.89], t(48) = 12.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.83], t(48) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.76], t(48) = 1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.35], t(48) = -0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.28, 19.58], t(48) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.55], t(48) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.99], t(48) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.33], t(48) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.21, 32.26], t(48) = 29.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.93, 3.73], t(48) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.05], t(48) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.52], t(48) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.41, 13.16], t(48) = 27.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.25], t(48) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.69], t(48) = -0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.34], t(48) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.23, 18.91], t(48) = 25.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.67, 2.08], t(48) = 0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.41], t(48) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-3.30, 0.97], t(48) = -1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.91, 14.57], t(48) = 19.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.26], t(48) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.98], t(48) = 0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.93], t(48) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.98, 11.92], t(48) = 22.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-2.90, -0.18], t(48) = -2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.24, -0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.91, 0.70], t(48) = -1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.67, 95% CI [-0.25, 5.59], t(48) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 2.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.46, 33.25], t(48) = 12.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-4.55, 7.74], t(48) = 0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-4.94, 2.51], t(48) = -0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-5.16, 7.16], t(48) = 0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.29, 25.57], t(48) = 21.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.87, 2.11], t(48) = -0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.84, 95% CI [-3.02, -0.66], t(48) = -3.06, p = 0.002; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 3.26], t(48) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.49, 29.42], t(48) = 21.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-4.67, 2.22], t(48) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.46, 95% CI [-3.64, 0.72], t(48) = -1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.73, 95% CI [-0.88, 6.33], t(48) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.91, 22.80], t(48) = 13.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-1.43, 6.80], t(48) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.01])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [0.42, 4.41], t(48) = 2.37, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.06, 0.65])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-4.77, 1.83], t(48) = -0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.68, 12.61], t(48) = 14.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.91], t(48) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.86])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.49], t(48) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-4.29, 3.36], t(48) = -0.24, p = 0.812; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.99])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.95, 17.43], t(48) = 13.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.63, 2.62], t(48) = -0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [-0.86, 5.68], t(48) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.29, 95% CI [-8.66, 2.07], t(48) = -1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.94, 24.20], t(48) = 16.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-2.29, 5.06], t(48) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.84])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.07, 95% CI [-2.09, 6.24], t(48) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-8.72, 4.88], t(48) = -0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.83, 18.88], t(48) = 16.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.64, 3.02], t(48) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.49], t(48) = 0.69, p = 0.493; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.45, 95% CI [-4.28, -0.62], t(48) = -2.62, p = 0.009; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [12.00, 14.86], t(48) = 18.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.48], t(48) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.63, 0.97], t(48) = -0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-1.05, 3.25], t(48) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.99])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.56, 18.16], t(48) = 25.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.37], t(48) = 0.60, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.82])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [0.03, 2.65], t(48) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [9.34e-03, 0.91])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-3.76, 0.57], t(48) = -1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.80, 13.58], t(48) = 17.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.66], t(48) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [0.07, 2.68], t(48) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [0.02, 0.83])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-3.71, 0.60], t(48) = -1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.62, 31.48], t(48) = 23.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-1.12, 5.67], t(48) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.71, 95% CI [0.43, 4.98], t(48) = 2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.08, 0.89])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.18, 95% CI [-6.94, 0.58], t(48) = -1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.65, 31.44], t(48) = 12.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-6.55, 5.73], t(48) = -0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-1.35, 4.83], t(48) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-2.41, 7.80], t(48) = 1.03, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.63, 15.80], t(48) = 12.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.84], t(48) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.82])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.02], t(48) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-4.65, 1.04], t(48) = -1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.62, 17.76], t(48) = 20.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.19], t(48) = 0.88, p = 0.376; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.91])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.13], t(48) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.61])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.15, 1.39], t(48) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.51, 33.30], t(48) = 17.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-2.83, 6.66], t(48) = 0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.88])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.92, 95% CI [-0.51, 4.34], t(48) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.57])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.74, 95% CI [-6.75, 1.28], t(48) = -1.34, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.15, 13.19], t(48) = 47.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.38], t(48) = -0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.86], t(48) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.67], t(48) = -1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.71, 16.67], t(48) = 20.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.03, 2.11], t(48) = 0.03, p = 0.972; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.43], t(48) = 0.56, p = 0.577; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.00, 95% CI [-6.33, 2.33], t(48) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.88, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.39, 15.89], t(48) = 15.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-3.36, 1.53], t(48) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.81], t(48) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.57, 95% CI [-4.46, -0.68], t(48) = -2.67, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.11, -0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.33, 32.34], t(48) = 19.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-5.08, 3.32], t(48) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-2.11, 4.74], t(48) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.69])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.10, 95% CI [-10.75, 0.55], t(48) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.23, 21.96], t(48) = 21.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.33], t(48) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.55], t(48) = 0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-3.18, 0.61], t(48) = -1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.81, 16.09], t(48) = 25.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.55], t(48) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.55], t(48) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-2.28, 3.23], t(48) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.68, 13.32], t(48) = 17.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.43, 0.25], t(48) = -1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-2.34, 0.62], t(48) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.11], t(48) = 0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.98])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.14, 11.77], t(48) = 10.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.44, 1.63], t(48) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.94], t(48) = -0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.45, 1.76], t(48) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.32, 12.06], t(48) = 10.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.98, 1.24], t(48) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.20, 0.56], t(48) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-2.06, 4.15], t(48) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.96])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.72, 9.23], t(48) = 8.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.03], t(48) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.86], t(48) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.71])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.23, 95% CI [-4.92, 0.45], t(48) = -1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.52, 32.72], t(48) = 10.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-8.84, 5.42], t(48) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-4.02, 2.95], t(48) = -0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-6.49, 5.04], t(48) = -0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

177.087

183.054

-85.544

171.087

recovery_stage_a

random

6

180.239

192.173

-84.120

168.239

2.848

3

0.416

recovery_stage_b

null

3

249.782

255.749

-121.891

243.782

recovery_stage_b

random

6

255.531

267.465

-121.766

243.531

0.251

3

0.969

ras_confidence

null

3

304.865

310.832

-149.433

298.865

ras_confidence

random

6

309.028

320.962

-148.514

297.028

1.837

3

0.607

ras_willingness

null

3

225.074

231.041

-109.537

219.074

ras_willingness

random

6

230.369

242.303

-109.185

218.369

0.705

3

0.872

ras_goal

null

3

266.852

272.819

-130.426

260.852

ras_goal

random

6

271.192

283.126

-129.596

259.192

1.660

3

0.646

ras_reliance

null

3

257.137

263.104

-125.569

251.137

ras_reliance

random

6

261.219

273.153

-124.610

249.219

1.918

3

0.590

ras_domination

null

3

249.320

255.287

-121.660

243.320

ras_domination

random

6

249.192

261.126

-118.596

237.192

6.128

3

0.106

symptom

null

3

391.475

397.442

-192.738

385.475

symptom

random

6

396.693

408.627

-192.347

384.693

0.782

3

0.854

slof_work

null

3

310.772

316.739

-152.386

304.772

slof_work

random

6

309.491

321.425

-148.746

297.491

7.281

3

0.063

slof_relationship

null

3

332.040

338.007

-163.020

326.040

slof_relationship

random

6

335.167

347.100

-161.583

323.167

2.873

3

0.412

satisfaction

null

3

349.884

355.851

-171.942

343.884

satisfaction

random

6

348.518

360.452

-168.259

336.518

7.366

3

0.061

mhc_emotional

null

3

286.616

292.583

-140.308

280.616

mhc_emotional

random

6

291.028

302.961

-139.514

279.028

1.589

3

0.662

mhc_social

null

3

331.964

337.931

-162.982

325.964

mhc_social

random

6

335.065

346.999

-161.533

323.065

2.899

3

0.408

mhc_psychological

null

3

349.372

355.339

-171.686

343.372

mhc_psychological

random

6

354.032

365.965

-171.016

342.032

1.341

3

0.720

resilisnce

null

3

304.076

310.043

-149.038

298.076

resilisnce

random

6

303.451

315.385

-145.726

291.451

6.625

3

0.085

social_provision

null

3

272.200

278.167

-133.100

266.200

social_provision

random

6

276.709

288.643

-132.355

264.709

1.491

3

0.684

els_value_living

null

3

267.018

272.985

-130.509

261.018

els_value_living

random

6

268.777

280.711

-128.389

256.777

4.241

3

0.237

els_life_fulfill

null

3

275.329

281.296

-134.664

269.329

els_life_fulfill

random

6

274.610

286.544

-131.305

262.610

6.719

3

0.081

els

null

3

335.279

341.246

-164.639

329.279

els

random

6

334.716

346.650

-161.358

322.716

6.563

3

0.087

social_connect

null

3

391.195

397.162

-192.598

385.195

social_connect

random

6

392.548

404.482

-190.274

380.548

4.647

3

0.200

shs_agency

null

3

312.423

318.390

-153.212

306.423

shs_agency

random

6

315.608

327.542

-151.804

303.608

2.815

3

0.421

shs_pathway

null

3

282.170

288.137

-138.085

276.170

shs_pathway

random

6

286.245

298.179

-137.123

274.245

1.924

3

0.588

shs

null

3

362.354

368.321

-178.177

356.354

shs

random

6

365.070

377.004

-176.535

353.070

3.284

3

0.350

esteem

null

3

181.831

187.797

-87.915

175.831

esteem

random

6

181.889

193.823

-84.945

169.889

5.941

3

0.114

mlq_search

null

3

289.152

295.118

-141.576

283.152

mlq_search

random

6

294.174

306.108

-141.087

282.174

0.977

3

0.807

mlq_presence

null

3

293.054

299.021

-143.527

287.054

mlq_presence

random

6

291.459

303.393

-139.730

279.459

7.594

3

0.055

mlq

null

3

359.687

365.654

-176.844

353.687

mlq

random

6

361.829

373.763

-174.915

349.829

3.858

3

0.277

empower

null

3

293.249

299.216

-143.624

287.249

empower

random

6

297.158

309.092

-142.579

285.158

2.091

3

0.554

ismi_resistance

null

3

256.542

262.509

-125.271

250.542

ismi_resistance

random

6

262.447

274.381

-125.224

250.447

0.095

3

0.992

ismi_discrimation

null

3

270.591

276.558

-132.295

264.591

ismi_discrimation

random

6

272.608

284.542

-130.304

260.608

3.982

3

0.263

sss_affective

null

3

292.447

298.414

-143.223

286.447

sss_affective

random

6

296.978

308.912

-142.489

284.978

1.468

3

0.690

sss_behavior

null

3

304.849

310.816

-149.424

298.849

sss_behavior

random

6

307.905

319.839

-147.952

295.905

2.944

3

0.400

sss_cognitive

null

3

296.848

302.815

-145.424

290.848

sss_cognitive

random

6

299.537

311.471

-143.768

287.537

3.311

3

0.346

sss

null

3

402.670

408.637

-198.335

396.670

sss

random

6

408.039

419.973

-198.020

396.039

0.631

3

0.889

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

21

3.38 ± 1.19

22

3.50 ± 1.19

0.745

-0.102

recovery_stage_a

2nd

7

4.13 ± 1.28

-0.646

4

3.99 ± 1.30

-0.419

0.858

0.125

recovery_stage_b

1st

21

18.43 ± 2.69

22

18.36 ± 2.69

0.937

0.058

recovery_stage_b

2nd

7

18.28 ± 2.01

0.135

4

18.65 ± 1.82

-0.254

0.754

-0.332

ras_confidence

1st

21

30.24 ± 4.73

22

31.14 ± 4.73

0.537

-0.647

ras_confidence

2nd

7

30.86 ± 3.16

-0.444

4

31.90 ± 2.68

-0.553

0.562

-0.755

ras_willingness

1st

21

12.29 ± 2.04

22

12.32 ± 2.04

0.959

-0.030

ras_willingness

2nd

7

11.88 ± 1.70

0.370

4

12.45 ± 1.61

-0.119

0.584

-0.519

ras_goal

1st

21

17.57 ± 3.13

22

17.77 ± 3.13

0.834

-0.158

ras_goal

2nd

7

17.69 ± 2.31

-0.092

4

16.72 ± 2.08

0.825

0.483

0.759

ras_reliance

1st

21

13.24 ± 3.11

22

13.64 ± 3.11

0.677

-0.492

ras_reliance

2nd

7

13.37 ± 2.02

-0.168

4

14.31 ± 1.68

-0.836

0.412

-1.159

ras_domination

1st

21

10.95 ± 2.27

22

9.41 ± 2.27

0.031

0.771

ras_domination

2nd

7

9.85 ± 2.38

0.552

4

10.97 ± 2.40

-0.782

0.456

-0.564

symptom

1st

21

28.86 ± 10.28

22

30.45 ± 10.28

0.613

-0.440

symptom

2nd

7

27.64 ± 7.23

0.334

4

30.24 ± 6.34

0.059

0.538

-0.715

slof_work

1st

21

23.43 ± 5.00

22

22.55 ± 5.00

0.566

0.779

slof_work

2nd

7

21.59 ± 3.17

1.621

4

22.01 ± 2.57

0.470

0.811

-0.372

slof_relationship

1st

21

26.95 ± 5.77

22

25.73 ± 5.77

0.490

0.575

slof_relationship

2nd

7

25.49 ± 4.12

0.685

4

26.99 ± 3.64

-0.594

0.535

-0.704

satisfaction

1st

21

19.86 ± 6.88

22

22.55 ± 6.88

0.207

-1.394

satisfaction

2nd

7

22.27 ± 4.55

-1.251

4

23.49 ± 3.82

-0.489

0.637

-0.632

mhc_emotional

1st

21

11.14 ± 3.43

22

12.00 ± 3.43

0.416

-0.349

mhc_emotional

2nd

7

12.29 ± 3.28

-0.467

4

12.68 ± 3.25

-0.278

0.849

-0.160

mhc_social

1st

21

15.19 ± 5.23

22

14.68 ± 5.23

0.751

0.151

mhc_social

2nd

7

17.60 ± 4.74

-0.716

4

13.80 ± 4.63

0.263

0.204

1.130

mhc_psychological

1st

21

21.57 ± 6.15

22

22.95 ± 6.15

0.464

-0.318

mhc_psychological

2nd

7

23.65 ± 5.85

-0.476

4

23.11 ± 5.79

-0.035

0.884

0.123

resilisnce

1st

21

16.86 ± 4.74

22

17.05 ± 4.74

0.897

-0.177

resilisnce

2nd

7

17.24 ± 2.99

-0.363

4

14.98 ± 2.43

1.938

0.180

2.124

social_provision

1st

21

13.43 ± 3.34

22

13.91 ± 3.34

0.639

-0.377

social_provision

2nd

7

13.10 ± 2.41

0.257

4

14.68 ± 2.14

-0.603

0.270

-1.238

els_value_living

1st

21

16.86 ± 3.04

22

17.41 ± 3.04

0.555

-0.428

els_value_living

2nd

7

18.19 ± 2.28

-1.037

4

17.15 ± 2.07

0.200

0.444

0.809

els_life_fulfill

1st

21

12.19 ± 3.25

22

13.91 ± 3.25

0.091

-1.346

els_life_fulfill

2nd

7

13.57 ± 2.37

-1.079

4

13.73 ± 2.12

0.140

0.907

-0.128

els

1st

21

29.05 ± 5.68

22

31.32 ± 5.68

0.197

-1.018

els

2nd

7

31.76 ± 4.14

-1.214

4

30.85 ± 3.70

0.211

0.710

0.407

social_connect

1st

21

27.05 ± 10.27

22

26.64 ± 10.27

0.896

0.138

social_connect

2nd

7

28.79 ± 6.84

-0.582

4

31.07 ± 5.79

-1.484

0.559

-0.764

shs_agency

1st

21

13.71 ± 4.88

22

14.64 ± 4.88

0.539

-0.551

shs_agency

2nd

7

15.02 ± 3.40

-0.778

4

14.14 ± 2.96

0.299

0.656

0.527

shs_pathway

1st

21

16.19 ± 3.67

22

17.18 ± 3.67

0.381

-0.738

shs_pathway

2nd

7

16.95 ± 2.61

-0.563

4

17.06 ± 2.30

0.092

0.942

-0.083

shs

1st

21

29.90 ± 7.94

22

31.82 ± 7.94

0.434

-0.814

shs

2nd

7

31.82 ± 5.31

-0.816

4

31.00 ± 4.51

0.348

0.787

0.350

esteem

1st

21

12.67 ± 1.22

22

12.32 ± 1.22

0.353

0.326

esteem

2nd

7

13.56 ± 1.27

-0.836

4

12.32 ± 1.29

-0.005

0.131

1.157

mlq_search

1st

21

15.19 ± 3.46

22

15.23 ± 3.46

0.972

-0.013

mlq_search

2nd

7

15.95 ± 3.57

-0.260

4

13.99 ± 3.59

0.425

0.387

0.673

mlq_presence

1st

21

14.14 ± 4.09

22

13.23 ± 4.09

0.467

0.830

mlq_presence

2nd

7

14.81 ± 2.68

-0.603

4

11.32 ± 2.24

1.729

0.025

3.162

mlq

1st

21

29.33 ± 7.02

22

28.45 ± 7.02

0.684

0.258

mlq

2nd

7

30.65 ± 5.57

-0.387

4

24.67 ± 5.18

1.111

0.084

1.755

empower

1st

21

20.10 ± 4.36

22

19.82 ± 4.36

0.836

0.251

empower

2nd

7

20.50 ± 2.82

-0.369

4

18.94 ± 2.33

0.794

0.328

1.414

ismi_resistance

1st

21

14.95 ± 2.67

22

14.91 ± 2.67

0.958

0.025

ismi_resistance

2nd

7

14.82 ± 2.43

0.075

4

15.25 ± 2.37

-0.198

0.777

-0.248

ismi_discrimation

1st

21

12.00 ± 3.08

22

10.41 ± 3.08

0.098

1.084

ismi_discrimation

2nd

7

11.14 ± 2.43

0.584

4

10.23 ± 2.25

0.124

0.532

0.624

sss_affective

1st

21

9.95 ± 4.24

22

9.05 ± 4.24

0.487

0.738

sss_affective

2nd

7

9.62 ± 2.82

0.267

4

8.37 ± 2.39

0.548

0.438

1.018

sss_behavior

1st

21

10.19 ± 4.37

22

8.82 ± 4.37

0.309

0.740

sss_behavior

2nd

7

8.87 ± 3.28

0.714

4

8.54 ± 2.97

0.150

0.866

0.177

sss_cognitive

1st

21

7.48 ± 4.11

22

8.05 ± 4.11

0.652

-0.358

sss_cognitive

2nd

7

8.71 ± 2.98

-0.776

4

7.05 ± 2.66

0.625

0.347

1.043

sss

1st

21

27.62 ± 11.92

22

25.91 ± 11.92

0.641

0.507

sss

2nd

7

27.08 ± 7.89

0.159

4

24.65 ± 6.64

0.375

0.588

0.723

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(49.95) = 0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.85)

2st

t(49.53) = -0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.77 to 1.48)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(42.72) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.59)

2st

t(31.94) = 0.32, p = 0.754, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.79)

ras_confidence

1st

t(41.81) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.81)

2st

t(42.78) = 0.59, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-2.57 to 4.67)

ras_willingness

1st

t(43.96) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.29)

2st

t(27.77) = 0.55, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.68)

ras_goal

1st

t(42.60) = 0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.13)

2st

t(32.79) = -0.71, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.80)

ras_reliance

1st

t(41.63) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.31)

2st

t(46.11) = 0.83, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -1.16, 95% CI (-1.35 to 3.22)

ras_domination

1st

t(49.14) = -2.23, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-2.94 to -0.15)

2st

t(42.43) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.90 to 4.16)

symptom

1st

t(42.19) = 0.51, p = 0.613, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-4.73 to 7.93)

2st

t(36.85) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-5.88 to 11.08)

slof_work

1st

t(41.48) = -0.58, p = 0.566, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.96 to 2.20)

2st

t(48.72) = 0.24, p = 0.811, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-3.11 to 3.95)

slof_relationship

1st

t(42.31) = -0.70, p = 0.490, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-4.77 to 2.32)

2st

t(35.46) = 0.63, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-3.36 to 6.36)

satisfaction

1st

t(41.73) = 1.28, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -1.39, 95% CI (-1.55 to 6.93)

2st

t(44.16) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-3.96 to 6.40)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(46.58) = 0.82, p = 0.416, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.96)

2st

t(30.48) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-3.78 to 4.57)

mhc_social

1st

t(45.40) = -0.32, p = 0.751, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.72 to 2.70)

2st

t(28.11) = -1.30, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-9.80 to 2.19)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(46.42) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.39 to 5.16)

2st

t(30.08) = -0.15, p = 0.884, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-7.97 to 6.90)

resilisnce

1st

t(41.47) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.73 to 3.11)

2st

t(48.85) = -1.36, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 2.12, 95% CI (-5.60 to 1.08)

social_provision

1st

t(42.41) = 0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.53)

2st

t(34.49) = 1.12, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.28 to 4.43)

els_value_living

1st

t(42.76) = 0.60, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.42)

2st

t(31.62) = -0.78, p = 0.444, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-3.79 to 1.70)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(42.49) = 1.73, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.35, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.72)

2st

t(33.70) = 0.12, p = 0.907, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-2.66 to 2.99)

els

1st

t(42.49) = 1.31, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (-1.22 to 5.76)

2st

t(33.66) = -0.37, p = 0.710, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-5.83 to 4.02)

social_connect

1st

t(41.79) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-6.74 to 5.91)

2st

t(43.06) = 0.59, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-5.54 to 10.11)

shs_agency

1st

t(42.12) = 0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-2.08 to 3.93)

2st

t(37.78) = -0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-4.86 to 3.09)

shs_pathway

1st

t(42.28) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-1.27 to 3.25)

2st

t(35.78) = 0.07, p = 0.942, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.97 to 3.19)

shs

1st

t(41.82) = 0.79, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-2.97 to 6.80)

2st

t(42.53) = -0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-6.91 to 5.27)

esteem

1st

t(49.09) = -0.94, p = 0.353, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.40)

2st

t(42.10) = -1.54, p = 0.131, Cohen d = 1.16, 95% CI (-2.86 to 0.39)

mlq_search

1st

t(48.61) = 0.03, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.09 to 2.16)

2st

t(38.95) = -0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-6.50 to 2.58)

mlq_presence

1st

t(41.68) = -0.73, p = 0.467, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.60)

2st

t(45.20) = -2.31, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 3.16, 95% CI (-6.52 to -0.45)

mlq

1st

t(43.36) = -0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-5.20 to 3.44)

2st

t(28.95) = -1.79, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 1.76, 95% CI (-12.81 to 0.85)

empower

1st

t(41.59) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.41)

2st

t(46.77) = -0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 1.41, 95% CI (-4.74 to 1.62)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(45.49) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.59)

2st

t(28.24) = 0.29, p = 0.777, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-2.64 to 3.50)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(43.26) = -1.69, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-3.49 to 0.31)

2st

t(29.25) = -0.63, p = 0.532, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-3.88 to 2.05)

sss_affective

1st

t(41.79) = -0.70, p = 0.487, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-3.52 to 1.71)

2st

t(43.17) = -0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-4.48 to 1.98)

sss_behavior

1st

t(42.77) = -1.03, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-4.06 to 1.31)

2st

t(31.62) = -0.17, p = 0.866, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-4.27 to 3.61)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(42.45) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.10)

2st

t(34.06) = -0.95, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-5.20 to 1.88)

sss

1st

t(41.75) = -0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-9.05 to 5.63)

2st

t(43.90) = -0.55, p = 0.588, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-11.43 to 6.56)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(36.51) = 0.70, p = 0.971, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.89)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(10.59) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.02)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(9.70) = 0.79, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.95)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(12.04) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.77)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(10.47) = -1.19, p = 0.523, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.01 to 0.91)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(9.54) = 1.19, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.95)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(26.47) = 1.25, p = 0.446, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-1.01 to 4.14)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(10.06) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-5.86 to 5.44)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(9.40) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.26)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(10.18) = 0.85, p = 0.829, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-2.04 to 4.57)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(9.63) = 0.70, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.97)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(16.58) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-2.76 to 4.13)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(14.21) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-5.74 to 3.97)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(16.24) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-5.97 to 6.28)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(9.39) = -2.75, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 1.94, 95% CI (-3.75 to -0.38)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(10.27) = 0.87, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.74)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(10.64) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.24 to 1.72)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(10.36) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.15 to 1.79)

els

1st vs 2st

t(10.36) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.91 to 2.97)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(9.69) = 2.12, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -1.48, 95% CI (-0.26 to 9.12)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(9.99) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.11 to 2.11)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(10.15) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.21 to 1.96)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(9.71) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.50 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(26.17) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.38)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(23.40) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.08 to 2.60)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(9.58) = -2.46, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 1.73, 95% CI (-3.64 to -0.17)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(11.30) = -1.61, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-8.94 to 1.37)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(9.51) = -1.13, p = 0.573, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.87)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(14.38) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.15 to 2.84)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(11.19) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.41 to 2.04)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(9.68) = -0.78, p = 0.907, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.26)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(10.64) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.12 to 2.57)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(10.32) = -0.90, p = 0.781, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-3.45 to 1.47)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(9.65) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-6.56 to 4.03)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(27.38) = 1.39, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.87)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(10.26) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.17)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(9.56) = 0.84, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.27)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(11.37) = -0.71, p = 0.984, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.85)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(10.17) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.61)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(9.44) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.10)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(20.99) = -1.14, p = 0.536, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.92)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(9.85) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-5.51 to 3.08)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(9.33) = -3.04, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-3.20 to -0.48)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(9.94) = -1.30, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-3.97 to 1.05)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(9.51) = 2.35, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (0.11 to 4.71)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(14.60) = 0.92, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.52 to 3.81)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(12.95) = 1.39, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.33 to 6.15)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(14.36) = 0.94, p = 0.729, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.66 to 6.81)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(9.32) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.66)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(10.02) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.83 to 1.17)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(10.30) = 1.97, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -1.04, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.84)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(10.08) = 2.04, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -1.08, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.88)

els

1st vs 2st

t(10.08) = 2.30, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (0.09 to 5.33)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(9.55) = 1.10, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.82 to 5.30)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(9.80) = 1.47, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.68 to 3.28)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(9.92) = 1.06, p = 0.625, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.34)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(9.57) = 1.54, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.88 to 4.71)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(20.79) = 1.72, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.98)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(19.05) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.24 to 3.76)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(9.47) = 1.13, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.98)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(10.81) = 0.74, p = 0.953, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-2.62 to 5.25)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(9.41) = 0.69, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.73)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(13.06) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.05 to 1.79)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(10.73) = -1.11, p = 0.580, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.56 to 0.84)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(9.55) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.14)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(10.30) = -1.35, p = 0.409, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-3.49 to 0.84)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(10.05) = 1.47, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.64 to 3.11)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(9.52) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-4.55 to 3.48)

Plot

Clinical significance